Hi,
Static analysis with Coverity reported an issue with the following commit:
commit a52c8e2469c30cf7ac453d624aed9c168b23d1af
Author: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
Date: Tue May 28 14:37:28 2019 +0300
RDMA: Clean destroy CQ in drivers do not return errors
In function bnxt_re_destroy_cq() contains the following:
if (!cq->umem)
ib_umem_release(cq->umem);
Coverity detects this as a deference after null check on the null
pointer cq->umem:
"var_deref_model: Passing null pointer cq->umem to ib_umem_release,
which dereferences it"
Is the logic inverted on that null check?
Colin
On Fri, 2019-06-14 at 14:59 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Static analysis with Coverity reported an issue with the following
> commit:
>
> commit a52c8e2469c30cf7ac453d624aed9c168b23d1af
> Author: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue May 28 14:37:28 2019 +0300
>
> RDMA: Clean destroy CQ in drivers do not return errors
>
> In function bnxt_re_destroy_cq() contains the following:
>
> if (!cq->umem)
> ib_umem_release(cq->umem);
Given that the original test that was replaced was:
if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(cq->umem))
we aren't really worried about a null cq, just that umem is valid. So,
the logic is inverted on the test (or possibly we shouldn't have
replaced !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(cq->umem) at all).
But on closer inspection, the bnxt_re specific portion of this patch
appears to have another problem in that it no longer checks the result
of bnxt_qplib_destroy_cq() yet it does nothing to keep that function
from failing.
Leon, can you send a followup fix?
> Coverity detects this as a deference after null check on the null
> pointer cq->umem:
>
> "var_deref_model: Passing null pointer cq->umem to ib_umem_release,
> which dereferences it"
>
> Is the logic inverted on that null check?
>
> Colin
--
Doug Ledford <[email protected]>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57
2FDD
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:46:50PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-06-14 at 14:59 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Static analysis with Coverity reported an issue with the following
> > commit:
> >
> > commit a52c8e2469c30cf7ac453d624aed9c168b23d1af
> > Author: Leon Romanovsky <[email protected]>
> > Date: Tue May 28 14:37:28 2019 +0300
> >
> > RDMA: Clean destroy CQ in drivers do not return errors
> >
> > In function bnxt_re_destroy_cq() contains the following:
> >
> > if (!cq->umem)
> > ib_umem_release(cq->umem);
>
> Given that the original test that was replaced was:
> if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(cq->umem))
>
> we aren't really worried about a null cq, just that umem is valid. So,
> the logic is inverted on the test (or possibly we shouldn't have
> replaced !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(cq->umem) at all).
I took a very brief look and think that the better way will be to put
this "if (null)" check inside ib_umem_release() and make unconditional
call to that function in all call sites.
>
> But on closer inspection, the bnxt_re specific portion of this patch
> appears to have another problem in that it no longer checks the result
> of bnxt_qplib_destroy_cq() yet it does nothing to keep that function
> from failing.
It was intentional for two reasons. First, bnxt_re already had exactly
same logic without any checks of returned call inside bnxt_re_create_cq().
Second, we need to release kernel memory without any relation to HW state.
Maybe I should move bnxt_qplib_free_hwq() to be immediately after
bnxt_qplib_rcfw_send_message() inside of bnxt_qplib_destroy_cq()?
>
> Leon, can you send a followup fix?
Sure, I'll do it tomorrow.
>
> > Coverity detects this as a deference after null check on the null
> > pointer cq->umem:
> >
> > "var_deref_model: Passing null pointer cq->umem to ib_umem_release,
> > which dereferences it"
> >
> > Is the logic inverted on that null check?
> >
> > Colin
>
> --
> Doug Ledford <[email protected]>
> GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
> Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57
> 2FDD